April 2, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Department of huh?
Law student PG, in the course of a rather interesting post on beliefs about rape and torture, bizarrely links me with the following description:
Some who support harsh treatment of terrorist suspects have claimed that the criminally convicted often are worse off than detainees, because given the choice between being raped and waterboarded, some likely would choose waterboarding.
The link is actually to one of my commenters, but I said the same thing here, and meant it: I'd rather be waterboarded than put in the general population of a high security prison. It is entirely possible that life at Guantanamo is more bearable than life at San Quentin, and no, that is not a defense of Guantanamo.
But that hardly constitutes support for torture, which I haven't and don't. I thought I'd been rather explicit about thinking torture is wrong. But just in case not: torture=bad. Wrong. Horrifying. Immoral. Un-American. Etc. Yes, if there were a ticking nuclear bomb I might slap a suspect around to get information out of him. But I also might hole up in a casino with my life savings and an extensive supply of recreational drugs; neither is a good guide to what should be done in the 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of times when there is not, in fact, an atomic time bomb around.
Posted by Jane Galt at April 2, 2007 9:28 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>Torture is bad for the same reason that terrorism is bad. It's not merely that it's violent and brutal, wars include too much of that to differentiate, but more that it violates fundamental principles of justice and, perhaps most importantly, because it is a losing tactic. Torture and terrorism do not win wars, at best they slow down losing, they are acts of desperation and weakness. Which we can and must do without if we want to win.
Consider the classic example of the nuclear time bomb. Imagine it being used for blackmail, to force the extra-judicial punishment of individuals the terrorists have identified. Is this blackmail very much different in a moral sense from the pressure to torture a suspected terrorist who may or may not have information on the nuke? I don't think so, in both cases we're being forced to subvert our own values by an enemy who has the upper hand.
That being said, much of what has been defined as "torture" these days is nothing of the sort. It's unfortunate that we've stopped having a real debate about this subject and have instead substituted a sham argument from ridiculous hypothetical extremes ("everything is torture" on the one hand and the unrealistic, melodramatic "find the nuke" scenario on the other) but that's been the case for a lot of issues lately.
Posted by: Robin Goodfellow on April 2, 2007 10:13 AMTorture and terrorism do not win wars
I'm anti-torture and anti-terrorism, but both can unquestionably play a role in winning wars, depending on who the enemy is.
At any rate, they seem to be working for our enemies.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on April 2, 2007 10:23 AMRecreational drugs? You know Megan, children may be reading.
Posted by: John Goes on April 2, 2007 10:34 AM...given the choice between being raped and waterboarded, some likely would choose waterboarding.
WTF? "Some" would choose waterboarding?!? Who in the world would choose rape?
Robin: Agreed. 'Torture' is not wrapping someone in an Israeli flag nor is it making them sit in a cramped position. Neither is having a nude or semi-nude person rub their genitals on you. Having your head stuck in a bag of rats is. I would love to have a real debate by our leaders to decide what is and is not allowed.
It hurts our country that neither side is capable of such a debate.
Posted by: Reagan Fan on April 2, 2007 11:21 AMReagan Fan: I generally agree with you, but we should probably also consider that "torture" is somewhat hard to define in a way that will be generally agreed upon in discussion, let alone in practice. I'm pretty sure that were I an American citizen (which I am) in an American prison (which I am not), I would consider having someone's genitals rubbed on me to be "cruel and unusual punishment." Could that be called "torture"? Probably not, but I would still argue that it should be prohibited (if at least to protect the dignity and integrity of the government, for what it's worth). I guess I would rather err on the side of allowing too little than too much.
Posted by: d.cous. on April 2, 2007 11:36 AMI agree RF that there should be a debate. I can recall an NPR interview with an interrogator who had operated out of Afghanistan and he was very clear about what procedures were allowable. When the President and AG went through their machinations to clarify what could legally be executed in the field, the opposition blurred all distinctions, rather like they did and continue to do with [illegal] immigration. So the edge of the difference between torture and more harsh interrogation was never made clear in public debate.
Moreover the difference between torture and interrogation is one of intent. If you believe that your president is a 'warmonger' then it doesn't really matter how stressful the interrogation. Consent would not be given. There are a significant number of Americans who believe that it is unethical that our soldiers, with all the protections we offer them, should be in harm's way at all. How would a public debate about our enemy's rights be straight? If your intent is to terrorize and not gain information, then interrogation isn't interrogation at all, but terrorism. Less than lethal terrorism but terrorism nonetheless. If your intent is to gain information and you fail to using your most stressful techniques, that doesn't make the technique torture, even though it would be the very same technique used to terrorize. This is the distinction I think too many people don't grant and they thus are being logically inconsistent.
Regan boy,
You write:
'Torture' is not wrapping someone in an Israeli flag nor is it making them sit in a cramped position. Neither is having a nude or semi-nude person rub their genitals on you.
What if they rub their genitals on your face or up your butt? Does that qualify as torture in your book?
Posted by: aa on April 2, 2007 11:47 AMReagan boy and cobb,
What about when detainees were stripped naked, handcuffed with their hands behind their back, and then a hook is attached to the chains of the handcuffs and lifts the detainee off the ground? Is that just a "cramped position" and does not qualify as torture?
Posted by: aa on April 2, 2007 11:50 AMI think Megan and Reagan Fan are underrating how it feels to be waterboarded. Not to say that you wouldn't still choose it, but anything that causes you to gag uncontrollably and makes you think you are about to die by drowning is pretty horrible.
Terrorism can be a succesful military tactic; torture almost never is. Can anyone think of an example where torture contributed to the success of one party in a conflict? I can't (though I'll keep thinking on it). I can think of a number of examples where it steeled the enemy's resolve. Torture also provides notoriously unreliable information from the interrogated. I do note that the effects of torture on a conflict are hard to quantify, as they provide primarily psychological "benefits" in a conflict, but I'd argue that there is no case of warfare (as opposed to state-sponsored repression) where torture has had a positive effect on the perpetrators' ability to win a conflict. Please provide a counterexample if you've got one.
Posted by: dedalus275 on April 2, 2007 11:56 AMYes, if there were a ticking nuclear bomb I might slap a suspect around to get information out of him.
This sentence from Jane reminded me of one of the things that most annoyed me about the whole torture debate. Senator McCain, et al, wanted all torture outlawed. When asked about the hypothetical nuclear bomb scenario, it was said that the law need not take that scenario into account because the men and women doing the interrogating would use torture and then rely on the prosecutor's use of discretion to avoid criminal liability for doing what was necessary -- even if it was illegal. My complaint is that, if Congress anticipates a possible situation in which torture would be necessary, the law out to allow for it. It is manifestly unfair to put men and women into a situation where they are required to violate the law. If Congress does not have the gumption to clearly state the circumstances in which torture would be permitted, they shouldn't defer such questions to a junior officer who's operating with too little sleep and under too much pressure. Our men and women in uniform deserve clear rules, not a blanket prohibition coupled with a promise to ignore a violation if it was necessary to ignore the prohibition. Instead, Congress adopted a position that allowed individual members to take the high moral ground while leaving the hard moral questions to underpaid public servants.
Note: None of this is to defend torture. I don't think the nuclear bomb scenario justifies torture. But then, I don't think water boarding is torture.
Dedalus, this is not a way of saying "Waterboarding is not that bad . . . ". It's just that I'm pretty sure it's not as bad as being anally gang raped by a bunch of thugs. Being gang raped is, after all, not as bad as being flayed alive, but it's still really, really, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally frigging horrifying . . .
Posted by: Jane Galt on April 2, 2007 12:06 PMTerrorism can be a successful military tactic; torture almost never is.
Yeah, one suspected terrorist who dies under torture would be a tragedy, but one million innocent deaths is a statistic, huh?
Taking your logic to it's illogical extreme, it would be righteous to bomb Baghdad until the rubble bounced in order to avoid torturing KSM into giving up what he knows about AQ in Iraq?
Posted by: Chris B on April 2, 2007 12:09 PMI think Megan and Reagan Fan are underrating how it feels to be waterboarded. Not to say that you wouldn't still choose it, but anything that causes you to gag uncontrollably and makes you think you are about to die by drowning is pretty horrible.Pretty horrible, yes. However, not everything that is pretty horrible is torture. The lack of a common agreement as to what is and what is not torture is part of the problem in having this debate. While very unpleasant, water boarding does not meet the historically understood definition of torture -- it does not inflict physical injury nor does it result in in long-term psychological damage.
...Can anyone think of an example where torture contributed to the success of one party in a conflict?... Please provide a counterexample if you've got one.How about the following example from the current conflict: An insurgent was taken prisoner. The interrogating officer had reason to believe that the prisoner knew of a pending attack on US forces. The prisoner refused to provide any information about the planned attack. The officer had the prisoner blindfolded and then shot his pistol into a garbage can right next to the prisoner's head and told him the next shot would be between the prisoner's eyes if he didn't provide the information desired. The prisoner caved and the information obtained helped thwart the attack, saving several US lives. (All of this was based on my best memory of the media reports. I may have gotten some of the details wrong, but I believe the essence is correct.)
Oh, and contra the opinion of several members of Congress that aggressive interrogation techniques would be tolerated if circumstances required their use, the officer was prosecuted for excessive use of force during the interrogation. Our forces are not allowed to threaten a prisoner with physical harm or death.
Jane: I see that, and I know you've factored that in, but personally I have a hard time imagining life after waterboarding. Anyway, it's sort of a ridiculous thought experiment in that they are both so horrifying as to be beyond comprehension.
Chris B: I wasn't making a moral judgement there, just a strategic one. My moral revulsion toward terrorism is second to the fact that torture provides unreliable information and I have yet to see a concrete example of its success. Terrorism, on the other hand, has a number of historical successes to its credit: the Algerian War of Independence, or the Irish one, or the Jewish Resistance Movement, among others.
Posted by: dedalus275 on April 2, 2007 12:28 PMDavid W: here's where this debate gets tricky: is that threat of shooting "torture"? I'd say no, because "it does not inflict physical injury nor does it result in in long-term psychological damage." But to say that waterboarding doesn't do the latter... well, I'm with John McCain that it is indeed "very elaborate torture."
Posted by: dedalus275 on April 2, 2007 12:32 PMIs it settled one way or the other that torture is effective?
Posted by: Jim Bursch on April 2, 2007 12:41 PMJane,
Thanks for your comments. As I mentioned in my reply at De Novo, this post is not exactly a pure "torture = bad" equation. If you later rescinded the post and I missed seeing that retraction, I apologize for assuming it still represents your thoughts on the matter.
I guess I'm just the cowardly pervert, but if given the choice between near-suffocation underwater -- even knowing that I wouldn't be killed, which is not something that the people being tortured are guaranteed ahead of time -- and giving a blowjob, I'd probably opt for the blowjob.
Despite the focus on anal sex in the imagination of most people when the phrase "prison rape" comes up, quite a lot of prison rape actually consists of forced/ coerced oral sex. 1) Even rapists are aware of STDs; 2) oral sex can seem "less gay," though in general prison rape bears many similarities to heterosexual outside rape in creating a gendered hierarchy, where the rape victim is the weak female and the perpetrator the strong male.
Posted by: PG on April 2, 2007 12:52 PMJane: I see that, and I know you've factored that in, but personally I have a hard time imagining life after waterboarding. Anyway, it's sort of a ridiculous thought experiment in that they are both so horrifying as to be beyond comprehension. - dedalus275
I hate to be pedantic, but water boarding isn't nearly as dramatic as you seem to think. Virtually all our military has gone through water boarding as part of their survival training, yet they seem to be able to "imagine [a rewarding] life after waterboarding." My wife had a similar aversion to the use of water boarding as a interrogation technique, until she saw a video of a news reporter being water boarded. Her reaction: "That's all!?"
Water boarding relies on a natural instinctive reaction to the feeling that water is about to go into your lungs. Even though you "know" that you are "safe", your body rebels and you want to do all in your power to get out of that situation. Since you are immobilized, you cannot physically do anything to get out of the situation -- but you can talk! (Most people do.) While certainly not pleasant, it's not the kind of thing most people think of in connection with torture. It's more like they've found a way to inflict you with the itch of a hundred mosquito bites and then bind your hands so you can't scratch it. Very quickly, most of us would do just about anything -- including talking -- to get the itching to stop. That's fairly close to what water boarding is, which is miles away from having your fingernails torn out or your skin branded with hot coals.
Posted by: David Walser on April 2, 2007 12:55 PMIt would help if folks would agree on what constitutes torture.
I've always been of the opinion that if you can get over it with a long nap and a good cry, it's not torture.
Removing body parts? Torture.
Being made to be exceedingly uncomfortable? Not so much.
PG, I wouldn't call that post an endorsement of torture; certainly not an endorsement of mishandling our current prisoners. Rather, it was an attempt to reconcile the fact that almost all of us would torture a terrorist to get information if our own loved ones were in deadly danger; but we don't want to extend that moral intuition to the state. As I've said, there and elsewhere, I think that's the right call. But it requires examination.
Posted by: Jane Galt on April 2, 2007 1:05 PMDavid W: here's where this debate gets tricky: is that threat of shooting "torture"? I'd say no, because "it does not inflict physical injury nor does it result in in long-term psychological damage." But to say that waterboarding doesn't do the latter... well, I'm with John McCain that it is indeed "very elaborate torture." - dedalus275
Generally, torture is thought to include the credible threat to inflict physical injury. That is, sitting a prisoner in a chair in front of a fire, heating a branding iron, and then holding it close to the prisoner's face, would be thought of as torture even though the branding iron never comes into contact with the prisoner's skin. I think it telling that the policy before the war prohibited such actions but permitted water boarding.
One more point about water boarding: I've never been water boarded, but my father has. He went through survival training in the artic, desert, and jungle. In each case, he parachuted into the area and he was pursued for as long as he could avoid capture and then went through an interrogation as if he were caught by the enemy. (By the way, the assumption was that the enemy would not be following the rules of war.) In my youth, he had told detailed stories about these adventures. Sleeping in a snow cave at 50 below zero or being chased through the jungle by natives made for interesting stories. When all this debate about torture came about, I asked him if he'd been water boarded. He said he had, once. I asked why he'd not mentioned it before. I thought that it may have been so horrible he did not want to relive the experience. (This is his reason for NEVER sharing any memory of his having killed another human being.) His answer: Water boarding wasn't a big deal and he didn't think it worthy of mentioning.
I posted over on the linked post as well, but my comment is apparently the one in question.
For the record, I do not support torture or harsh treatment of terror suspects. I posted my comment after watching a video of a reporter being voluntarily waterboarded three times (at least). Each step was progressively worse (apparently there are levels of waterboarding). He actually volunteered to be waterboarded the second and third time... The reporter said that he was terrified during the process but was remarkably rational afterwards and recovered very quickly. He even commented that he felt fine after it was over with no ill effects. The way the media had been discussing waterboarding left me with the impression that it was as bad as pulling out fingernails with a pair of pliers.
As far as I could tell, any sort of forcible rape would be worse than waterboarding.
As far as what laws should be made goes, I do not believe that laws should include every possible exception. Laws should be as clear and simple. The various prosecuting authorities have the discretion to not bring a case to court if they feel that it is not justified. We can't expect the legislature to account for extremely unlikely events. That's one reason I'm generally opposed to measures that make violating the law impossible.
EI
I think torture should be illegal, but pardonable. I don't see why this debate is turning our government into an inflexible ideal about relative ethics. We have mechanisms already in place to handle that inane atomic bomb scenario, without throwing out our sensibilities. If an agent finds himself in that situation, and thinks that he can save the country by torturing someone, I don't think illegality is going to stop him. He's not in the service of our country for the salary after all.
And as for waterboarding not being a big deal, neither is a drop of water on the forehead, put in the right context its torture. Its not the procedure, its all about how its used. If it is not that big of a deal, then its not likely to be much of a incentive to confess is it?
I'm highly apposed to the use of humiliation and discomfort tactics, I definitely consider them tools of torture.
Posted by: Jeffrey Boser on April 2, 2007 1:20 PMDon't remember where I saw this comic (and probably can't access it here), but it was really funny, enough so to memorize:
***
Dick Cheney's Thought-Experiment Legislation!
Cheney: What if a terrorist knew the location of a nuclear bomb that was about to go off? Surely torture would be okay then?
Imagine the possibilities!
Person 1: This baby swallowed the code for disarming a bomb in the basement!
Person 2: Blast those short-sighted legislators for banning the tearing open of live babies!
Next scene:
Person 3: I can divert this trolley from hitting those five people ... but only by making it hit another person standing off the tracks.
Person 4: What were they thinking when they barred unauthorized personnel from accessing trolley controls?
Next scene:
Person 5: This monkey has been typing for an infinite time and is now blogging nuke launch codes!
Person 6: Why did we ever trust those animal rights extremists who said we should ban killing monkeys!
Posted by: Person on April 2, 2007 1:29 PMDavid W: point taken. I imagine waterboarding as an interrogration technique to be more dramatic than once-and-you're-done. It is part of CIA training, but they opt out after a few seconds (under 15 on average). If your comparison is apt (the mosquito bite one), then you'd be right that it's not so bad. And I appreciate your family story about the procedure. On the flip side, why would John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years (mostly) in the Hanoi Hilton, think it qualifies as torture?
Jane (since apparently I'm calling you Jane again), I'm mainly with you on the role of moral intuition on the torture dilemma. I think there needs to be a strong legal disincentive to torture. Period. This is not about Kantian moral absolutism, but about principles that we try to hold to.
Jeffrey pretty much sums up my views on this, actually.
Posted by: dedalus275 on April 2, 2007 1:31 PMDavid, no offense to your wife, who I'm sure is an intelligent and sensitive person, but I'm not sure how viewing " a video of a news reporter being water boarded" in a safe and controlled situation (for reporter and viewer) really leads to an informed reaction. This is especially true given that - while the reflex is universally shared - the actual act is quite unusual and unfamiliar. We might watch a (real or simulated) scene of conventional physical torture and have a visceral reaction - based on part on extrapolated shared experience - of disgust and (literally) sympathy. If getting burned on a hot stove felt like [that], being branded with hot coals must be even worse. In some form, pain is our frequent and familiar companion throughout life. Choking, a lot less so, and (for most of us) never in a setup like that.
Same - like dedalus has been saying - for the rape/waterboarding comparison - most of us might still agree with Jane, but rape is in many ways partly known, either personally (too many people either have been raped or know (of) someone who has) or imaginatively - TV, news, general culture, etc. It's likely to loom larger and more threateningly in our minds than the still largely unfamiliar and hard to imagine waterboarding. Again, we might still consider it preferable, were all else equal, but . . .
"Taking your logic to it's illogical extreme, it would be righteous to bomb Baghdad until the rubble bounced in order to avoid torturing KSM into giving up what he knows about AQ in Iraq?
If I had to pick between the two, with each being discrete events without further consequences, I and no doubt everyone else would go with torturing KSM. But in reality, it's a lot more complicated in a way that isn't covered by pointing out that this is a 'illogical extreme' situation. Over centuries, with generations of ongoing effort, torture has been increasingly banned, rendered publicly unacceptable, viscerally abhorrent, in certain parts of the world - in some others, at least driven into the shadows. Over all those years, we've in essence built an enormous dam of legal, social, cultural and political norms, and reclaimed the moral lowlands for habitation. Now some folks have been insisting on knocking open a few cracks, just for the immediate emergency, because they're so very thirsty, and surely they can be contained and patched up as soon as possible . . .
On the flip side, why would John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years (mostly) in the Hanoi Hilton, think it qualifies as torture?
McCain, like virtually all politicians, chooses his battles. In this case, I just don't think he saw any upside in debating whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. The public had already decided it was torture and the effort to disabuse them of this notion would entail great political risks with little if any political benefit. All that, of course, assuming McCain understood what waterboarding was and was familiar with the arguments about why it has not been considered a form of torture before now. I don't think that's a safe assumption.
Yes, if there were a ticking nuclear bomb I might slap a suspect around to get information out of him.
Ah, the convenient scenario where one gets to ponder fine philosophical points in a detached sort of way, because the subtext is one is not the person at risk.
How about this one? You are the one about to be blown up, and someone somewhere else is pondering those same fine philosophical points on whether to extract the information that will save your life, or let you meet your Maker so that the decision-maker can feel good about himself?
Those living (or who have lived) in Manhattan should particularly take this scenario to heart, because it is far and away the most likely one for them. They won't be making the decision, but rather be consumers of that decision, as it were.
And let's move the threat off from nuclear weapons - too abstract. Let's say you're a subway rider, and unknown to you, we have reason to believe that a captive may have information relating to a plot to put nerve gas somewhere in the NY subway system. We can't shut down the subway on every possible threat, but this one may be real...or, maybe not.
Now - would you (if you knew about this) want that captive sweated, or no?
Posted by: Occam's Beard on April 2, 2007 1:40 PMDavid, no offense to your wife, who I'm sure is an intelligent and sensitive person, but I'm not sure how viewing " a video of a news reporter being water boarded" in a safe and controlled situation (for reporter and viewer) really leads to an informed reaction. This is especially true given that - while the reflex is universally shared - the actual act is quite unusual and unfamiliar. We might watch a (real or simulated) scene of conventional physical torture and have a visceral reaction - based on part on extrapolated shared experience - of disgust and (literally) sympathy. If getting burned on a hot stove felt like [that], being branded with hot coals must be even worse. In some form, pain is our frequent and familiar companion throughout life. Choking, a lot less so, and (for most of us) never in a setup like that.Dan, I'm not suggesting everyone would or should have the same reaction as my wife. I am saying that most of us do not have the experience necessary to form an informed opinion about waterboarding. My fear is that uninformed opinion will deprive our military of a valuable tool. In this regard, I'll note that another poster on this thread had the same reaction as my wife. Before seeing the video of the reporter going through waterboarding, he/she was opposed to its use as torture. With a better understanding of what waterboarding entails, he/she is no longer opposed to its use (with, I'll assume, proper safe guards). I'll also note that the vast majority of our military -- who have practical experience with the technique having gone through it themselves -- do not consider it torture.
Who's opinion should control here, those with knowledge or those without?
...Over centuries, with generations of ongoing effort, torture has been increasingly banned, rendered publicly unacceptable, viscerally abhorrent, in certain parts of the world - in some others, at least driven into the shadows. Over all those years, we've in essence built an enormous dam of legal, social, cultural and political norms, and reclaimed the moral lowlands for habitation. Now some folks have been insisting on knocking open a few cracks, just for the immediate emergency, because they're so very thirsty, and surely they can be contained and patched up as soon as possible . . .I think this is exactly backwards. We do not see the US military asking for relaxed standards with regard to torture. We see activists demanding significant expansion of the definition of torture such that it covers techniques that were not considered torture before. That's the problem with this debate. By calling an interrogation technique torture, many think they've answered the question. Instead, they've assumed away the question in (mis)classifying waterboarding as torture. Posted by: David Walser on April 2, 2007 2:00 PM
Robin Goodfellow: “Torture and terrorism do not win wars”
It seems to me that terrorism is within a few months of delivering victory in Iraq and possibly later in Afghanistan.
Robin Goodfellow: “Consider the classic example of the nuclear time bomb. Imagine it being used for blackmail, to force the extra-judicial punishment of individuals the terrorists have identified. Is this blackmail very much different in a moral sense from the pressure to torture a suspected terrorist who may or may not have information on the nuke? I don't think so, in both cases we're being forced to subvert our own values by an enemy who has the upper hand.”
The classic example is meant to illustrate a cost benefit scenario, not the one you trot out. Should a single individual be tortured to prevent the deaths of million of innocents?
Posted by: Robert Brown on April 2, 2007 2:08 PMRobert, I'd draw a distinction between "Should a single individual be tortured" and "Should a single individual be permitted to be tortured" in your example. If one million people are at stake, why would a little thing like a legal restiction against torture stop you from protecting them?
Posted by: dedalus275 on April 2, 2007 2:18 PMJane,
"but we don't want to extend that moral intuition to the state"
How does your statement, "And I think that our operatives are probably so tempted when they face down the evil men who seek out soft civilian targets to sow terror," constitute NOT extending that moral intuition to the state? Presumably those operatives are dealing with threats to large anonymous populations, not to their individual loved ones. The 24 fantasies in which Jack Bauer has to torture someone to save his daughter (God, will she ever die?!) have almost no relationship to how government employees/ contractors actually deal with terrorist suspects.
Posted by: PG on April 2, 2007 2:35 PMIt is manifestly unfair to put men and women into a situation where they are required to violate the law.
Happens every year, April 15th.
Posted by: RKN on April 2, 2007 2:48 PMDedalus275: I was rebutting Robin Goodfellow’s distortion of “nuclear time bomb scenario”.
That said, If the debate is not about what is permissible, then there is no debate. If my child is going to be killed unless I can find her, of course I am going to torture whoever knows where she is, even though I think most of us would agree that should not be permissible. Sure there are going to be cops that are willing to torture the guy who knows where the bomb is. The question is should society prevent them from doing so.
torture doesn't work...except to appeal to the 'torturer' in all of us.
Posted by: judson on April 2, 2007 3:33 PMperhaps the proper use of torture would be to force the enemy to spend an evening at NYC's S & M club The Vault...all the necessary people and tools available for getting the job done.
This way the anti-torturers can have a righteous hard-on believing they're above it all.
Posted by: syn on April 2, 2007 3:48 PMJudson-
And your evidence for this sweeping generalization is....?
And your definition for "works" is....?
And your qualifications for omniscience are...?
Are you saying that torture has "never" provided valuable information that could not be obtained any other way?
That torture has "never" secured the cooperation of recalcitrant subjects?
Certainly the Soviets, Nazis and other "torturers" believed it was useful.
This is not to defend torture, but your statement is so broad as to be meaningless.
Posted by: Harry on April 2, 2007 3:55 PMjudson: torture doesn't work...except to appeal to the 'torturer' in all of us.
You will also have to make an exception for when it does work.
For instance, if the government aims to get a certain piece of information from a person, and torturing them causes them to give up this information (e.g., the name of their cell's leader). Torture did work in Algeria, and works in Israel. Whether it is the right policy in the long run or not is a separate question from asking whether it "works" in getting a specific piece of information from a specific person.
Or, for instance, when the point of torture is to scare people. For instance, torture is working out quite nicely right now in Uzbekistan. You want to be a Muslim? Fine, we'll leave you alone. You want to be a radical Muslim, and share your views with other people? Okay, we'll break your arms and your teeth. It "works," i.e. it accomplishes some goal beyond that of satisfying the torturer's urges. It's not about satisfying the twisted urges of state torturers, it's about maintaining political control in the face of a threat from radical Islam.
And, of course, if you want confessions, torture is great at producing results.
Torture in America's prison systems works pretty well at reducing recidivism. Rape is absolutely a form of torture, fear of rape is torture, and allowing inmates to serious beat one another is torture. Ask a felon in a drug treatment program why they are so desperate to get clean. They scared, really scared, about going back.
I am leaning strongly towards the anti-torture camp, but if it means I have to suspend rational thought, I'm not going to commit.
There is an idea that to be a "good" person you must eschew torture under practically all circumstances (99.999999%, ticking atomic timebombs being the exception). The TV show 24 is great at coming up with situations like that. Thankfully in real life, those situations are quite rare. I can understand this idea, even if I don't accept it completely.
There is a sophisticated view that torture is bad because there are better techniques for getting information from people. Maybe. Maybe it's true for most people. Waterboarding seems to be pretty effective.
There is another idea: that to be a "good" person you must reject the idea that torture can ever "work." That is insanity, because it requires you to deny facts that are obvious: in some situations, torture will produce the desired result. It may even be the most efficient, most effective way to get there. Denying that is denying reality. Demanding that other people join you in denying reality is kooky cult behavior.
If you can say: notwithstanding that torture often produces the desired result, which is sometimes a morally good result (it's better that America know al-Qaida's plans than not, or that Israelis learn the identity of the next suicide bomber), we should still eschew torture--that's a view I can respect. I'm not sure I agree with it though I am leaning in that direction.
FWIW, I also consider it insane that Bush is using coerced confessions from detainees to prosecute them. That is also intellectually bankrupt. Torturing or coercing (or whatever word you please--I don't want to "offend" anyone) them for information might be acceptable, but torturing them for confessions is barbaric and stupid and pathetic. It makes a mockery of our basic American values. I don't want foreign terrorists to have the full benefit of our legal system, but if we're going to put them through any sort of trial, the trials should be basically fair. If the president is going to hold foreign terrorists indefinitely without any chance to prove their innocence, fine--but he should do so honestly and not try to sell an obviously false lie to the American people. The White House is in need of a restoration of honor and dignity.
Posted by: Daryl Herbert on April 2, 2007 4:13 PMPart of the reason I think the question of torture is so important is because our culture wants to know.
I'm imagining a scenario presented in 24, in which the (vice)President has threatened a nuclear strike against another country suspected of carrying out a bungled one on American soil. The (heroic) CTU squad is chasing down leads by any means necessary so that they can prove one way or another that certain parties are innocent or guilty.
Is the President justified in lashing out (ignore the nukes for the example) and killing 10,000 in a retaliatory strike if it can never be definitely proven by confession extracted by tickle or torture? The value of tortuous interrogation is the value of knowing. It seems to me that if we didn't care about knowing and proving then we could strike militarily with a preponderance of evidence rather than absolute certainty...
This brings up an interesting conundrum for those who oppose Iraq because we didn't absolutely know about WMD. Would they have had Hans Blix torture Iraqi scientists to prove there were no WMD instead of have the entire war in Iraq? Would they have him do the same in Iran today to get the absolute truth about Iranian uranium enrichment?
This absolute need to know and absolute prohibitions on torture are servants of absolute certainty. In the end, given that we are human, it's absolute folly.
Posted by: cobb on April 2, 2007 4:30 PMFWIW, I also consider it insane that Bush is using coerced confessions from detainees to prosecute them.
Cite please
torture doesn't work...
This type of argument reminds me of a debate I witnessed while in junior high school. The Vietnam War was still on and the debaters were running for various student body offices. One participant proudly proclaimed, "I don't believe in war!" This proclamation was rewarded with thunderous applause and cheers. I recall wondering two things at the time: First, what does the Vietnam War have to do with our junior high school? Second, what does this person mean by "I don't believe in war"? Either the person does not believe war exists, which proves that he is woefully ignorant of the facts. War definitely does exist (and did at the time of the debate). Or the person does not believe war should exist, which sentiment does nothing to separate the speaker from any sane person.
Back to torture, what is meant by "torture does not work"? The statement is nonsensical on its face. Did Saddam torture thousands of his citizens for no reason? Have the "aggressive interrogation techniques" employed by the US military (which I argue do NOT constitute torture) not yielded important information that has been successfully used to thwart attacks and to capture or kill additional terrorists? (I'm not saying these techniques have not yielded false information. I'm saying that, on the whole, the information provided has been found valuable by the military.) So, is the argument that torture doesn't work (at all), that it doesn't work on a cost/benefit basis, or that it is morally unjustified under all circumstances?
Posted by: David Walser on April 2, 2007 4:54 PMPG-
I haven't had time to look up your references, but I will try tonight.
My own understanding of prison rape comes from talking to a number of former inmates as well as several prison officials. I was an MP when I was in the army and chowed with a bunch of the 95Cs (prison guards) and got to hear their stories as well.
The first thing that happens when you are orally raped in prison is that you lose your teeth. I will only say that what happens next bears precious little to what a consenting couple would call a blowjob. Since gagging and not being able to breath are present in both waterboarding and oral rape, I will stick with the waterboarding.
The only question that any of the inmates have brought up about being gay is very simplistic. You pitch= not gay; you catch= gay. It doesn't matter which orifice.
I do not condone torture. Nor do I believe that a person can do anything that would warrant rape as punishment. (And to answer the earlier questions; genitals in your face is disgusting, vile, nasty, & revolting, but it's not torture. Genitals in your butt is not torture, either. That is rape.) I do see the necessity of interrogation technics that I would judge cruel and unusual from a criminal justice standpoint. Said interrogations should be handled by trained professionals for targeted, specific information. (My vote goes to MI- you get visibility, which would not be happen if the CIA were doing it, and you get a smarter than average soldier.)
Posted by: Reagan Fan on April 2, 2007 5:22 PMThat is, sitting a prisoner in a chair in front of a fire, heating a branding iron, and then holding it close to the prisoner's face, would be thought of as torture even though the branding iron never comes into contact with the prisoner's skin.
Interesting. I personally would consider that threatening someone with torture. I wouldn't actually call it torture until the branding iron is used.
On that note, it strikes me that much of the real debate going on right now isn't really "pro-torture" or "anti-torture", it's "what is the definition of torture?" I'm anti-torture, but unfortunately there are folks out there like Andrew Sullivan claiming that wrapping someone in the Israeli flag or putting panties on their head is torture. Sorry, that's not torture. Neither is sleep deprivation or loud music blaring in the cell twenty-four hours a day. Based on the descriptions on this thread, it would appear there's a case to be made that waterboarding is not torture.
Posted by: DRB on April 2, 2007 5:26 PMThe sad truth is apparent to me...we now live in a nation where a large percentage of the population believes that putting a chicken in a coup is immoral. It only makes sense that those people would see any kind of uncomfortable treatment of a human being as unconscienable.
How about this... we are at war. Sometimes in war terrible things have to happen. That's why we don't like to go to war. When we try to legislate every type of action that takes place in a war there is a good likely hood we'll wind up on the losing side. If people want to start wars with us, we will prosecute and finish the war to the greatest extent possible. We will excerise kindness and charity as we see fit and as the situation dictates. We will likewise be as ruthless and violent as the situation dictates. Wars aren't pretty things. I would never be happy to be involved in one. But here we are and as long as there are people desperate to kill us we need to do everything possible not just to stop them but to kill them.
Posted by: cdub on April 2, 2007 5:39 PMOn the flip side, why would John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years (mostly) in the Hanoi Hilton, think it qualifies as torture? Maybe it depends on what he's thinking of as "waterboarding." This has been used for forcing someone to drink grossly excessive amounts of water (as by stuffing a garden hose down your throat), to the point that stomach rupture is a danger. It's also been used for wrapping someone in plastic and dunking their head in water. The first is very definitely torture as well as life-threatening, the second is something our military often does to it's own members as part of training.
I do think waterboarding (2) is still "torture", but it's about where torture begins, very mild compared to gang-rape, waterboarding (1), the Spanish Inquisition, or what Islamic terrorists are likely to do to hostages...
Posted by: markm on April 2, 2007 6:00 PMIs the President justified in lashing out (ignore the nukes for the example) and killing 10,000 in a retaliatory strike if it can never be definitely proven by confession extracted by tickle or torture? The value of tortuous interrogation is the value of knowing. It seems to me that if we didn't care about knowing and proving then we could strike militarily with a preponderance of evidence rather than absolute certainty...
Cobb, you have this entirely backwards. That's not the way to get confirmation, unless you don't care what the truth is as long as you get the answer you want. If you torture something with a particular answer in mind, and you don't get that answer, you're not trying very hard. It proves nothing whatsoever about the truth. We aren't Stalinists or Inquisitors - we should place no value on forced testimony for a show trial or to justify a political decision already made.
When torture is somewhat effective is when you just want some fresh leads, and already know enough of the truth to catch most of the lies the prisoner tells. Eventually, he'll run out of lies and let out some truth - but information extracted thus should be treated as possible leads to be confirmed by other means, not as anything to rely on. I have my doubts as to how often the results from such tactics are worth the psychological cost to the interrogators - not to mention the costs of running down lots of false leads, and the risks of having false preconceptions "confirmed".
Posted by: markm on April 2, 2007 6:15 PMAh, now I know what it'll take to get Jane to hole up with me in a casino with a bunch of recreational drugs! Just a threat of a nuke!
Easily worth the effort! :-)
Posted by: Flynn on April 2, 2007 6:25 PMAnyone who wishes to advocate Torture under extreme circumstances, please let me recast the debate.
Everyone assumes the person to be tortured knows the information. What if the person doesn't? No matter how much you may argue that we'd always get the right person, Sometimes through mistakes, misconduct or sheer preversity, it won't be. If you tortured someone, and they couldn't tell you what you wanted, when would you stop? after all they may just be harder to break.
Of course I think about the police and prosecutors who railroaded Death Penalty cases only to have over half the cases overturned/exonerated later for various reasons. (Cref: Illinois 2000) I'm sure torture would have supplied even more 'confessions'. Give me a week with no escape and i'm sure I can have you telling me everything I know just to get me to stop.
I suppose the best way to look at it, You may trust yourself with that power, but are you willing to trust your worst enemies, the most psychopathic and insane with that power, because in the end, they're the ones most likely to use it.
Posted by: Mark on April 2, 2007 6:47 PMYeah, one suspected terrorist who dies under torture would be a tragedy, but one million innocent deaths is a statistic, huh?
Bingo. Its the same moral corruption that insists going to war to remove a dictator is more "moral" than simply having a STA Team put a bullet in his head.
Posted by: Fen on April 2, 2007 7:05 PMAnyone who wishes to advocate Torture under extreme circumstances -
Shouldn't go there. You can't deny me to access to torture to save my USMC brothers from a roadside IED, then demand the same access to save your own family from a nuke planted in your city. It all or nothing - justifying torture in "exteme circumstances" is hypocritical.
Also note, we waterboard our own troops in SERE school, to prep them for what to expect.
No matter how much you may argue that we'd always get the right person, Sometimes through mistakes, misconduct or sheer preversity, it won't be...Of course I think about the police and prosecutors who railroaded Death Penalty cases only to have over half the cases overturned/exonerated later for various reasons.
You're confusing warfare with crime. Same mistake Clinton made. We often destroy targets without 100% certainty that no innocent civs are in the area. Its not a courtroom.
torture doesn't work...
Under the right expertise it does. If I waterboarded you, I could get you to give up your SSN and mother's maiden name in less than 30 seconds.
Posted by: Fen on April 2, 2007 7:21 PMJane's recent blogposts being for Passover and against the US for it's 'torture' means she has a line somewhere in terms of assigning blame. A line is good. Also, you have to balance values which you can really not put a number on. 'Tens of thousands of Muslim Algerians who supported the French were killed by the anti-French forces when the French pulled out of Algeria, many made to swallow their French medals first. Part of the reason France pulled out was the overblown claim of torture. Let us keep in context that we are learning how to win a war.
Posted by: michael on April 2, 2007 7:29 PMThe problem, of course, is that torture exists in a smooth continuum, starting with panties on the head through waterboarding and finally ending up with the extreme of forcing some poor unfortunate to watch The View.
Now that's what I call taking off the gloves.
Posted by: Occam's Beard on April 2, 2007 7:32 PMMark has the right of it. The question is not "is torture ever justified", under the right contrived circumstances I'm sure it could be. The question is more whether it is right to give the government the power to torture.
Also, to those above who say that terrorism can be a winning tactic. Consider that it is not the terrorism itself which wins the war but rather the "diplomatic", ideological, and informational warfare within which terrorism is used which can be effective (by disheartening the enemy, but not by outright defeating them). Terrorism has never proven effective against a determined enemy, and that is the ultimate test of effectiveness of any tactic.
Posted by: Robin Goodfellow on April 2, 2007 8:52 PMSo for the whole "torture doesn't work" crowd a question:
Why do you suppose those Brits are on Iranian TV "confessing" to being in Iranian territorial waters? You don't think there were just asked nicely do you?
Posted by: The Confused One on April 2, 2007 9:04 PMReagan Fan,
So we can get a rough count on the number of prisoners who have suffered oral rape by the number who show up to the prison doctor toothless? Well, it should help with gathering statistics, at least.
TCO,
Depends on what you consider to "work." Do you think those Brits would give up true information that would endanger their compatriots if they were tortured, or would they babble bullshit to get it to stop -- without the Iranians being the wiser? If I were in Iranian hands and they wanted me to mouth an apology, I'd do it without much prodding necessary. Everyone who counted would know it was false; people who believed it was real are people who believe only what they want anyway.
Posted by: PG on April 2, 2007 10:29 PMI love how far our standards have gone... form 'humane treatment' to 'well, it's not like waterboarding is as bad as rape!'
Classy.
Posted by: LnGrrrR on April 2, 2007 11:01 PMMark has the right of it. The question is not "is torture ever justified", under the right contrived circumstances I'm sure it could be. The question is more whether it is right to give the government the power to torture.
Um no, government has always had the power to torture and has done so for pretty much all of our history and no matter what laws are passed, it isn't ever going to go away. The only question is what if any safeguards and controls should be placed on it in order to ensure that its use is limited to circumstances that we find justifiable.
Should it require official sanction such a torture warrant? (Dershowitz) Should torturers have to be charged with torture but defend themselves by proving the elements of some variation of the Necessity Defense (Yoo)? Should we just rely on prosecutors exercising their discretion and not prosecuting or presidential pardons for those we deem legitimate? Or do we just continue on our current course of publicly decrying it as “barbaric” while privately being thankful that rough men stand ready to do violence to keep us safe while putting no real safeguards or controls in place .
Posted by: Thorley Winston on April 3, 2007 12:18 AMI vote that anyone who advocates any particular type of torture should be immediately subjected to it.
Posted by: Immoralist on April 3, 2007 1:17 AMImmoralist-
Have you noticed that many of those who dispute that a particular technique is torture are, in fact, those who have been exposed to those techniques during military training?
It seems like those who have been subjected to it are the ones who think it's not that bad.
Posted by: CDG on April 3, 2007 6:55 AMTerrorism has never proven effective against a determined enemy
If that's the standard, then I suppose nuclear weapons have never been proven "effective," either. They merely "disheartened" the Japanese and didn't destroy them outright, after all.
Morale is one of the elements of warfare, and a victory achieved (or defeat suffered) by destroying morale is not somehow less real than one achieved by destroying materiel.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on April 3, 2007 8:57 AMI'll again note the correlation between commenters in this thread who object to 'torture' but view terrorism (=the deliberate targeted killing of people not in uniformed armed forces) as a legitimate tactic of warfare.
Y'all cool with carpet bombing Baghdad?
Posted by: Chris B on April 3, 2007 12:55 PM"Dick Cheney's Thought-Experiment Legislation!"
Ooh, I've got one:
Person #1: Giving birth to this baby will certainly kill me! However, it just so happens that cutting it out of me and killing it in the process is somehow less dangerous, and the only possible way for me to survive!
Person #2: How could those heartless bastards ever have passed laws banning late-term abortions?
Posted by: troll-o-matic on April 3, 2007 2:07 PMIt seems like those who have been subjected to it are the ones who think it's not that bad.
*Shrugs*
I'm sure what constitutes "torture" can be defined six ways from Sunday. It depends entirely on the individual's pain threshold. I know that I'd personally blow my brains out rather than be forced to watch "The Simple Life" re-runs with my eyes peeled back a la "Clockwork Orange." Your mileage may vary.
I do think that it's good policy to make those who wish to administer anything that might be considered "torture" to experience it themselves. People who want to hurt other people should be forced to experience that hurt themselves before they can inflict it upon others. If they get through it and still want to use it on other people, then they may do so. My guess is that it would deter almost everyone from practicing torture, save for a few hardcore "for king and country" types and the odd sado-masochist.
Posted by: Immoralist on April 3, 2007 2:17 PMGood idea immoralist. I love the "do unto others..." theory applied across the board. So we have chicken hawks and now chicken tortures.
Anyone in favor of abortion must at least abort one of their own children first or if their a male require their spouse to abort one of their children in order to support its practice.
Anyone joining the Army that will have to shoot someone else, possibly in the head, will also have to be shot in the head so as to understand its effects.
Any nation desiring to possess nuclear weapons must have one of its cities destroyed by nuclear weapons first.
Gee it's great not to have to think and apply these wonderful rules across the board.
Posted by: cdub on April 3, 2007 3:48 PMGood idea immoralist. I love the "do unto others..." theory applied across the board. So we have chicken hawks and now chicken tortures.
Man, it's the Golden Rule. Matthew 7:12. What do you have against Jesus? ;-)
Posted by: Immoralist on April 3, 2007 7:17 PM“… torture=bad. Wrong. Horrifying. Immoral. Un-American. Etc.”
“Yes, if there were a ticking nuclear bomb I might slap a suspect around to get information out of him.”
Two observations:
First, many (most?) people would probably agree with both statements. That doesn’t mean, however, that in asserting both, those people would be being consistent or intellectually honest about this topic.
True intellectual honesty about this topic requires either a complete rejection of torture under any & all circumstances — no matter how grave, or — alternatively — an acknowledgement that under certain (extreme) conditions, torture is the moral course. Anything less is a cop-out… for me, for Jane, for anyone.
Second, if one decides torture is the moral course in certain (extreme) circumstances, the question then becomes how to define “certain (extreme) conditions.” Does potentially saving NYC from a nuclear bomb qualify? What about potentially saving 10 planes full of passengers over the Pacific? Or how about 100 American soldiers who might otherwise die in the future from roadside bombs in Iraq?... or 10 American soldiers?… or 1?
I don’t know the answer here, but I have to think the unequivocal anti-torture sentiments that we’re all used to hearing and expressing come a little bit too easily… and not entirely honestly.
Wow, I just read through every single argument here, and no one managed to provide any proof that torture had EVER worked to acquire information (NOT to acquire fake confessions and bogus information--there's plenty of evidence it finds that). Which is surprising, because I would have thought that torture would have worked at SOME point. It probably has, but it's also probably generated such a vast volume of fake information and frightened away so many potential cooperators that it's obviously not worth it. (That point needs to be emphasized more--preemptively abandoning the use of extreme measures in extreme times may make it less likely that the times will in fact become extreme. Desperate measures are called desperate because they usually fail, and only the desperate would resort to them.)
But the key observation here is that everyone in favor of torture *doesn't care* about facts. You just feel in your gut that bad guys ought to be tortured, you feel in your gut that this is the right policy. And that's all that's ever driven torture--ignorant sadism, never logical thought. Torture is both morally and pragmatically wrong. There's no honest opinion other than that.
Posted by: Consumatopia on April 3, 2007 9:29 PMTrue intellectual honesty about this topic requires either a complete rejection of torture under any & all circumstances — no matter how grave, or — alternatively — an acknowledgement that under certain (extreme) conditions, torture is the moral course.
Every position fits under one of those two statements. I mean, unless you think we should be torturing everyone all the time.
Maybe you're thinking of the idea that torture is okay sometimes but should never be legal. But that fits squarely within the second statement--if you're taking a consequentialist view of torture, you should take a consequentialist view of laws regarding torture. It's perfectly possible that torture helps sometimes but the law enabling torture would do more harm than good.
That said, I'm not a consequentialist. I think torture is wrong in every case. I also think that if you're ever in a situation in which you think torturing someone would help, you're probably wrong, but torture would still be wrong even if you were right. Or, to put it another way, how many members of your own family would you be willing to rape in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off?
Posted by: Consumatopia on April 3, 2007 9:39 PMWhat on earth does raping a member of my own family have to do with torturing Osama's right hand man to figure out where the bomb is?
On one hand we have caught a known terrorist, not suspected, but known. And he we know he has plans that are already in the works for another terrorist attack. We can get the information from him by whatever means necessary.
I started typing a reply specifically to your rape question then deleted it because it's such a stupid thought expirement that it bears no further comment.
Posted by: cdub on April 3, 2007 10:32 PMNo, you're too stupid for the thought experiment. (which is unsurprising because the only support torture has is ignorant rage). It's the same logic as the ticking bomb scenario. It's the same application of consequentialist logic. Are you willing to do something immoral to prevent something that's utilitarianly worse?
Posted by: Consumatopia on April 4, 2007 4:50 AM"are you willing to do something immoral to prevent something that's utilitarianly worse"
Up until a few years ago feminist America pull their baby halfway out their vagina, left the head inside for legal purposes, then stuck a tube in the nape of the baby's neck and sucked out the baby's brain so as to collaspe the baby's skull.
Feminist were perfectly willing to do something immoral just to break glass.
Of course I live in NYC, the Killing Baby capital of the world where for one human born another is exterminated so all this righteousness about being above torture is ridiculous.
Send the enemy to a NYC S & M club they love torture. This is after all the age of post-modern anti-enlightenment Collectivists who are comsumed with righteous barbarian debauchery
I am utterly confused as to why all the rightwingers in this thread keeping bringing up abortion. Unless there are pregnancies in which a woman has shoved an independently existing fetus into her uterus (I'll be generous and include IVF, i.e. embryo transfer from petri dish to uterus, here) and then mistreats it for her own ends, abortion is completely irrelevant to what occurs in prisons and Gitmo.
The people who become prisoners and detainees once existed independently of the prisons and detention camps. Our government determines that for Americans' safety, these people need to be kept captive. Our government thereby assumes some responsibility for their well-being in captivity. Sexual violence in prisons even when committed by fellow inmates, and torture even when done in good faith for public safety purposes, would seem to be a failure of this responsibility. Some may say it is too expensive and difficult to keep inmates from raping each other; some may say the need to get information justifies the torture. OK, but let's try to keep on topic instead of getting on irrelevant hobbyhorses.
Posted by: PG on April 4, 2007 12:46 PMWell, I'm sure Lynndie England got some great information out of that guy on a leash.
Posted by: v on April 4, 2007 12:57 PMSome may say it is too expensive and difficult to keep inmates from raping each other...
-----
I think the whole problem with the line of reasoning that implies we need to protect imates from themselves and their co-imates as to do with why they are in prison in the first place. They don't follow societies rules. Yes, indeed it would be impossible to protect society if a large percentage of people went around raping other people on the same scale as in prison. How do you handle someone who doesn't follow rules in the first place? Does society bend over backwards and risk bankrupting itself as every single prisoner has more funds spent on them than we do for: students, homeless, people on welfare combined?
Or do we say enough is enough...you're in prison, you've shown no desire to follow the rules in society and now you're breaking them to the largest possible extent outside of society, it's time we stick a need in you and put you to sleep.
Yep, I think I'm in favor of cameras in every possible corner of the jailhouse and any instance of prison rape is an immediate execution for the offender(s).
Spending inordinate amounts of money to construct new and larger prisons simply because the prisoners are out of control is ridiculous.
Posted by: cdub on April 4, 2007 5:31 PMI should also point out that atomic bombs have not, in fact, been detonating for only 99.9999999999999999999995% of the time. Jane is off by 12 orders of magnitude, which is a bit much even for the Economist.
Posted by: AT on April 4, 2007 10:47 PMPeople who want to hurt other people should be forced to experience that hurt themselves before they can inflict it upon others.
That may be an interesting way of shutting down the death penalty debate in favor of the opposition (but who will be available to hoist the advocates' collective gallows?), and paralyzing the machinery of law with respect to life sentences also, but it isn't a very useful metric. It basically pleads to negative infinity, and therefore establishes no baselines or principles of its own by which law and war may be practically carried out.
Or did you mean that only certain types of "hurting someone" should qualify? If so, where is the dividing line, and why? Why is your dividing line better than that drawn by someone else who sees things differently? Etc.
Posted by: anony-mouse on April 5, 2007 4:28 AMEvidence of the effectiveness of torture? Wow, just pick up a history of war book. The Gestapo were successful in rolling up the Prosper underground network, and used torture to acquire the information to do so. That's off the top of my head, and I'm sure you can find as many cases as you wish if you ask Mr. Google about it.
Posted by: John on April 5, 2007 1:07 PMA lot of the comments above point to the catch-22 underlying the debate about:
1)How cruel/inhumane 'x' form of coercion is and
2)How effective 'x' form of coercion is.
Seems to me you can't have it both ways. The more one insists that x really isn't that bad, the more one most concede that x really isn't that effective.
Posted by: dan on April 5, 2007 1:28 PMSeems to me you can't have it both ways. The more one insists that x really isn't that bad, the more one most concede that x really isn't that effective.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Some people are afraid of heights, irrationally so. Put such a person at the top of a very high building, strap them into a safety harness, and then suspend them over the street below. Allow the cable they are suspended from to suddenly drop 6 inches and the individual will tell you anything you want to know just to get back onto terra firma. All the time, the person will KNOW that they are perfectly safe, yet they will have an uncontrollable urge to get back onto the ground.
Waterboarding takes advantage of a similar instinct virtually all of us have. A person being waterboarded may know that they are not going to be harmed by the experiance, yet the they will have an overwhelming urge to stop the feeling that they are about to ingest water. Once the person is on dry land, they are almost immediately back to "normal". There are no long term ill affects to being waterboarded. Despite the fact it's "safe", it's not the kind of thing it appears people can build up a tolerance for. So, it's very effective, but it's not "bad" in the way we've traditionally thought of torture.